/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21715216]

>wants to become an anglican priest
>goes to ww2
>"oh nooo how could the nazis be so ebil god is dead :(("
>becomes an academic
>"if God is dead I shall fix the world with my groundbreaking theory of justice!"
>WE SHOULD MAXIMIZE THE BENEFIT FOR THE WORST CASE POSSIBLE NOT FOR THE AVERAGE CASE!
>that's it
>lefties go nuts
>best philosopher of the century, hands down
>later lefties turn on him because he didn't talk about race and women
This is almost as baffling as Nietzsche's popularity. So tell me, what am I missing regarding this great hero of the socialists? I already know the method by which he got to that conclusion ("original position"), but, in practice, a method is as good as the outcome it produces, and the outcome was that simple social theory I already outlined.

[Cluster B !GY4CZZOlWY No.21715223]

>>21715216
You’re mentally masturbating. None of these concepts mean anything. Go get laid.

[Anonymous No.21715228]

>>21715223
>Flustered Bitch

[Anonymous No.21715241]

>>21715216
>wants to become an anglican priest
In a way he did.

[Anonymous No.21715244]

>This is almost as baffling as Nietzsche's popularity. So tell me, what am I missing regarding this great hero of the socialists?
Every single humanities' student for the past 3 decades has had to acquaint themselves with "A theory of Justice" and the Nozick counterarguments. Millions upon Millions of students. Not just in America but around the world.
The idea that liberal arts students are being influenced by marxism or "cultural marxism" is largely blown out of proportion, but every single libtard has read and been influenced by A Theory of Justice.
I find it baffling that the right hasn't sussed this out and started an orchestrated campaign against it......instead they get preoccupied with marx.

"Reflective equilibrium" is one of the single dumbest ideas in political philosophy EVER!

[Cluster B !GY4CZZOlWY No.21715259]

>>21715228
Society laughs at you, which is why you’re here.

[Anonymous No.21715268]

>>21715244
>the Nozick counterarguments
Which are?
>I find it baffling that the right hasn't sussed this out and started an orchestrated campaign against it.....
Based on what?... The "right" is liberal too and generally agrees that the worst off people from society should be better off than they are. There's no "aristocratic" right, right-wing is just populism. In fact, the right can use this theory [local to the country] to argue against immigration as it makes it worse for the lower class. There's no need to fight Rawls at all.

[Anonymous No.21715274]

>>21715259
You're projecting so hard you make me feel sorry for you anon, so I can't mock you anymore

[Anonymous No.21715375]

>>21715268
>Which are?
google it you fucking villager

>Based on what?...
rawls basically argues for significant wealth redistribution (tax) and a reinvigoration of the "Social Contract". Last i checked the right weren't big fans of that and prioritized the individual over the collective.

cool thread bro

[Anonymous No.21715380]

>>21715375
>google it you fucking villager
Nah
>". Last i checked the right weren't big fans of that and prioritized the individual over the collective.
What year are you living in? The right is not neocons.
>cool thread bro
Thanks for your undergrad-level input, here's your F

[Anonymous No.21715390]

He was Chad-lite.

[Anonymous No.21715560]

>>21715380
>"there is no right-wing in a liberal democracy"
you are in no position to call into question the intelligence of anyone ever again for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.21716231]

Bump

[Anonymous No.21716369]

>>21715390
>canted eyes
>gigantic simian philitrum
Left-Chudjack incarnate, Bertrand Russel except with no mathematical research contributions.

[Anonymous No.21717579]

>>21716369
Seething

[Anonymous No.21717588]

>>21715216
I thought John Rawls was a keynesian and was for regulated welfare capitalism.....

[Anonymous No.21717655]

>>21717588
Rawls rejects welfare capitalism and endorses either “property owning democracy” where productive assets are wildly dispersed or “liberal socialism.”

[Anonymous No.21717782]

the real way to make a rawlsian seethe is to just ask "why should we care about ideal theory"

you can just watch them argue amongst themselves over trying to come up with any justification for the importance of this 1000 page game theory shit post

[Anonymous No.21717785]

>>21717655
>“property owning democracy” where productive assets are wildly dispersed

Hmmm where have I heard this before.

[Anonymous No.21718929]

>>21716231
why bump this? OP is a massive fag and midwit

[Anonymous No.21719582]

>>21715241
>>21717782
>>21717785
These desu

[Anonymous No.21719605]

>>21715216
>This is almost as baffling as Nietzsche's popularity. So tell me, what am I missing regarding this great hero of the socialists? I already know the method by which he got to that conclusion ("original position"), but, in practice, a method is as good as the outcome it produces, and the outcome was that simple social theory I already outlined.
You didn't outline anything.

[Anonymous No.21719607]

>>21717782
Does he use math in his work?

[Anonymous No.21719620]

>>21719605
He did though, Rawls says we should optimise for the worst well-off in society.

[Anonymous No.21719664]

>>21719607
Not really but the basic idea of the veil of ignorance and the selection of the principles of justice is based on very basic game theory of maxi-min

[Anonymous No.21719707]

>>21715216
In Illusions of Progress, Sorel makes fun of French authors that think they can create a perfect world with set theory. This is what Rawls reminds me of.

[Anonymous No.21719713]

>>21715216
just read Nozick and skip the bullshit

[Anonymous No.21720178]

>>21715259
then why are you here, if that's the case?